An asylum seeker is a person who leaves their country of residence, enters another country and applies for asylum in that other country. An asylum seeker is an immigrant who has been forcibly displaced and might have fled their home country because of war or other factors harming them or their family. If their case is accepted, they become considered a refugee. The terms asylum seeker, refugee and illegal immigrant are often confused.
Refugee law is the branch of international law which deals with the rights and duties states have vis-a-vis refugees. There are differences of opinion among international law scholars as to the relationship between refugee law and international human rights law or humanitarian law.
The right of asylum is an ancient juridical concept, under which people persecuted by their own rulers might be protected by another sovereign authority, like a second country or another entity which in medieval times could offer sanctuary. This right was recognized by the Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews, from whom it was adopted into Western tradition. René Descartes fled to the Netherlands, Voltaire to England, and Thomas Hobbes to France, because each state offered protection to persecuted foreigners.
The New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority or RSAA, was an independent authority that heard the appeals of people who had been declined refugee status by the Refugee Status Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service. It was established in 1991, and was replaced by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in 2010. New Zealand established the RSAA as part of its responsibility to uphold the right of asylum as a result of being a signatory of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. The decisions of the RSAA are not binding, but have had a significant impact on refugee jurisprudence.
Human rights in Serbia are a product that reflect the country’s social norms, local political processes, state and legal history, and foreign relations with parties such as the European Union. Like human rights more generally, these rights are protected through the ongoing incorporation of global norms into legal systems and enforcement of the law, with the goal of holding duty-bearers accountable for their enactment and redress for victims of their violation. Recent reports by Human Rights Watch note persistent flaws with systemic exclusion of the Roma minority population, harassment of the press and faulty protection of asylum seekers.
The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Coleman v Attridge Law (2008) C-303/06 is an employment law case heard by the European Court of Justice. The question is whether the European Union's discrimination policy covers not just people who are disabled but people who suffer discrimination because they are related or connected to disabled people. At the beginning of 2008, Advocate General Maduro delivered his opinion, supporting an inclusive approach. He said discrimination law is there to combat all forms of discrimination, including those connected to protected groups of people.
The Australian government has a policy and practice of detaining in immigration detention facilities non-citizens not holding a valid visa, suspected of visa violations, illegal entry or unauthorised arrival, and those subject to deportation and removal in immigration detention until a decision is made by the immigration authorities to grant a visa and release them into the community, or to repatriate them to their country of origin/passport. Persons in immigration detention may at any time opt to voluntarily leave Australia for their country of origin, or they may be deported or given a bridging or temporary visa.
HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning two men, from Iran and Cameroon respectively, claiming asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds of their homosexuality. The men's claims had previously been turned down on the basis they would not face persecution in their own countries if they would conceal their sexuality. The appeal therefore centred on the question as to whether the men on their return could reasonably be expected to tolerate this requirement of discretion; the so-called 'discretion' or 'reasonable tolerability' test. Interventions were made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552 is a United Kingdom labour law and European labour law case concerning discrimination by employers against their workers who join and take action through trade unions. After a long series of appeals through the UK court system, the European Court of Human Rights held that ECHR article 11 protects the fundamental right of people to join a trade union, engage in union related activities and take action as a last resort to protect their interests.
Lewisham LBC v Malcolm[2008] UKHL 43 was a case concerning disability discrimination and the application of equality legislation in the United Kingdom, relevant for UK labour law. It replaced the head of disability-related discrimination from the DDA 1995 with the Equality Act 2010 section 15 on discrimination arising from disability.
Mangold v Helm (2005) C-144/04 was a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about age discrimination in employment.
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.
Tuvalu is a small island nation in the South Pacific, located North of Fiji and North West of Samoa. The population at the 2012 census was 10,837. Tuvalu has a written constitution which includes a statement of rights influenced by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. While most human rights in Tuvalu are respected, areas of concern include women’s rights and freedom of belief, as well as diminishing access to human rights in the face of global warming. The latter has played a major role in the implementation of human rights actions in Tuvalu given its geographical vulnerability and scarce resources.
Illegal immigration to Canada is the act of a person who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident entering or remaining in Canada in a manner contrary to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its associated regulations. That includes persons who entered Canada on a travel visa but remained beyond the period of stay specified as well as persons who entered Canada without presenting themselves at a port of entry.
Plaintiff M70 is a decision by the High Court of Australia. The lawsuit concerned an injunction sought by multiple Afghan asylum seekers against immigration minister Chris Bowen. The injunction was to prevent Bowen from deporting the plaintiffs to Malaysia, pursuant to s198A of the Migration Act. The purpose of the deportation was to avoid their asylum application from being assessed by Australia.
The European Union is committed to upholding Human Rights and sees this as a core and essential part of its role. As such the EU seeks to protect and defend these rights within member states and in interactions with non-members.
Human rights in Sweden are largely protected in the country's constitution and ratified international law. The three Constitutional acts concerning human rights are Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government, Regeringsformen, the Freedom of the Press Act, Tryckfrihetsförordningen (1949) and Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen (1991). Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into Swedish domestic law since 1995.
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department was a case decided on 3 November 2005 by the UK House of Lords that determined whether or not a delay in initiating an application to seek asylum limited an individual from receiving access to state relief. Furthermore, the case questioned whether this denial of state relief constituted a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 ('ECHR').
